Josh Carroll wrote: >> Not to say that any problems that might have developed with SCHED_4BSD >> should not be fixed, but you should give SCHED_ULE a try since it brings >> benefits even for single CPU systems (e.g. better interactive response). > > For my particular work load, 4BSD is actually faster than ULE in > RELENG_7. Specifically, on a Q6600 running ffmpeg -threads 8 to > transcode some H.264 video, 4BSD is about 5% faster. I took a sample > video and transcoded the first 120 seconds of it, and here are the > results (including a control from 6.2-RELEASE-p7/4BSD scheduler): > > releng_6_2 (4BSD) 1:32.39 > releng_7 (4BSD) 1:32.44 > releng_7 (ULE) 1:37.15 > > This is obviously a different scenario from MySQL. So perhaps ULE > isn't as well tuned for cases like ffmpeg? > > Josh >
I suspect that the increased performance is stolen from the process with focus. I don't care much about my calculation being 5% faster if that renders the machine unusable. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
